Monday, October 31, 2005
  Falwell Picks Next Supreme Court Nominee
Duhbya called up God to ask him who he should pick for his next nominee to the Supreme Court. God was out playing golf with Reagan and Eisenhower so Gabriel answered the phone.

“Hi. Gab here.” He listened a minute to the incoming call. It sounded awfully like mosquitoes buzzing.

“No. God is out,” Gabriel said trying to be patient – more mosquito buzzing. “Now look Junior, I’ve told you before, God doesn’t have time for your penny-ante bullsh*t. Besides, you don’t ever do what he tells you to do anyway.”

More mosquito buzzing. “Hold on there Junior. God didn’t tell you to nominate Miers. You’re not hitting the sauce again are you?”

“Buzz, buzz, buzz.”

Gabriel looked slightly amused and replied, “Yeah, well. I don’t care if Cheney did say that on the floor of the house, I’m not going to pass a message like that on to God. You do it yourself. In the meantime, why don’t you call Jerry Falwell? I think he’s in an alley just across town from you entertaining a guest.”

“Buzz, buzz, buzz.”

“Well, Junior, you know what they say. Judge not least ye be judged. And besides, Falwell will be a Born-Again Christian – again – before he goes to church tomorrow.” Gabriel gently hung up the phone.

Duhbya finally did get Falwell on the phone but there was a lot of interference. About every thirty seconds, Falwell would shout out, “Oh Lord, I’m coming.” The background noise was some kind of slurping sound, kind of like the pumps had made as they pumped the last water out of New Orleans.

Falwell was breathing hard but he finally managed to gasp out, “Alito, Alito, Alito-o-o-o, oh Lord I’m coming now.”

So that is how Alito became the next Supreme Court nominee – at least, that’s what I heard. Here is some other stuff I heard about Alito:

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
Samizdat: an underground system for the circulation of forbidden works of literature and political criticism in the Soviet era of Russia.

Location: Arkansas, United States

Angry, angry, angry ... but still, any day above ground is a good day.